Swift Produce, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 360 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Swift Produce, Inc. and Sales Drivers, Food Pro-
cessors, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 952 , Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America . Case 21-
CA-11074
April 30, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS , AND PENELLO
On November 29, 1972, Administrative Law Judge
James T. Barker issued the *attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed ex-
ceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Aot, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order, only to the extent con-
sistent herewith.
We find merit in the General Counsel's exceptions
to the Administrative Law Judge' s failure to conclude
that certain remarks made in speeches to assembled
employees by Respondent's owner, William Crutch-
field, constituted further violations of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
At the first such employee meeting, called soon
after the commencement of the employees organiza-
tional activities, Crutchfield reiterated certain re-
marks he had made earlier to individual employees.'
Thus, he told the assembled employees that he was
concerned about the ability of the company to with-
stand the demands of the Union, adding that the com-
pany could not meet them without cutting routes and
laying off employees or "letting them go." This state-
ment is very similar to remarks Crutchfield made ear-
lier to individual employees in which he stated that
the company could not afford a union and, if the
employees selected a union, layoffs would result and
possibly terminations, shutdowns, or a change in the
operation. We have found these earlier statements to
be unlawful threats and, consequently, as we consider
Crutchfield's statement in this speech to be a reaffir-
mation of these earlier threats, we find that it also
constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.'
In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge 's conclusions that Crutchfield 's earlier threats , inquiries,
and interrogation of individual employees violated Sec 8(a)(I) of the Act
2 Inasmuch as the Administrati v e Law Judge 's recommended Order en-
At this same meeting, Crutchfield asked the em-
ployees if they had a spokesman and, after an employ-
ee answered that they all had gripes, Crutchfield
proceeded by asking each employee to express his
complaints.' Following the exchange between Crutch-
field and the employees, Crutchfield excused himself
saying that he would be available in the main plant if
the employees desired to talk further with him.
There is no evidence that the Respondent was in the
habit of soliciting grievances from its employees and,
inasmuch as the timing of the solicitation of griev-
ances directly coincided with the origination of em-
ployee union activity, it is not unreasonable to draw
the inference of improper motivation and improper
interference with employee freedom of choice. Fur-
ther, the solicitation of employee grievances, in the
circumstances presented here, carried with it the im-
plied promise that such grievances would be remed-
ied 4 Such conduct is clearly unlawful. Accordingly,
we find that, by engaging in such conduct, Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
Finally, we conclude, contrary to the Administra-
tive Law Judge, that Respondent's conduct in connec-
tion with the selection of an election observer violated
Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. The record evidence clearly
establishes that on the day before the scheduled
Board election Crutchfield addressed a meeting of
assembled employees during which he stated that it
would be necessary for them to select an observer for
the election. Crutchfield then remained present while
the choice of a nominee was discussed and an individ-
ual selected. Unlike the Administrative Law Judge,
we cannot excuse Crutchfield's conduct because of his
apparent misunderstanding of the Board's election
procedures. Rather, we are persuaded that
Crutchfield's conduct, particularly in view of his re-
maining present during the discussion and selection of
the observer, interfered with the employees basic Sec-
tion 7 rights and, accordingly, constituted a violation
of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act.
In view of our findings, above, we shall amend the
Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law and
modify his recommended Order.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Conclusions of Law are amended by substitut-
ing the following paragraph 3 for paragraph 3 in the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision:
"3. By interrogating employees concerning their
compasses similar threats made to individual employees , it is unnecessary to
amend the Order to cover this additional threat
3 Prior to the hearing the General Counsel amended the complaint to
include an allegation that Respondent , through Crutchfield, did solicit griev-
ances from employees for the purpose of undermining support for the Union.
'Associated Mills, Inc, 190 NLRB 113
203 NLRB No. 60
SWIFT PRODUCE, INC.
card signing and other union or protected concerted
activities and the union or protected concered activi-
ties of other employees; by inquiring into the identity
of the employee leader of the organizational effort; by
giving employees the impression that their union or
concerted activities are under surveillance; by threat-
ening the employees with termination if they will not
accept the maintenance of nonunion working condi-
tions and/or because they fail to disclose their in-
volvement in union or protected concerted activities;
by threatening employees with layoff, termination, or
a modification in the method of operations which
would redound to their economic disadvantage; by
soliciting grievances or complaints from employees
for the purpose of ascertaining what improvements in
working conditions could be granted which would
induce the employees not to seek unionization and by
implying that such grievances would be remedied;
and by interfering with employees in the exercise of
their right to self-organization by insisting that they
select an election observer and by remaining present
during the selection process, Respondent has engaged
in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge, as modified
below, and hereby orders that Respondent, Swift Pro-
duce, Inc., Buena Park, California, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the Administrative Law Judge's recommended Or-
der, as herein modified:
1. Add the following as paragraphs 1(f) and 1(g) of
the recommended Order, relettering existing para-
graph 1(f) as paragraph 1(h):
"(f) Soliciting grievances from employees for the
purpose of ascertaining what improvements in work-
ing conditions could be granted which would induce
the employees not to seek unionization and implying
that such grievances would be remedied."
"(g) Interfering with employees by insisting that
they select an election observer and remaining present
during the selection process."
2. Substitute the attached notice for the Adminis-
trative Law Judge's notice.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
361
WE WILL NOT interrogate employees in a man-
ner violative of the provisions of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act concerning your union activities , inter-
ests, or sympathies.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees con-
cerning your card signing activities , the penden-
cy of organizing meetings, the identity of the
employee or employees who led the organizing
effort, or the general progress of the organizing
effort.
WE WILL NOT give our employees the impres-
sion that your union or other protected concerted
activities are being kept under surveillance by
management or supervision.
WE WILL NOT threaten to layoff or terminate
employees or otherwise reorganize our operation
so as to result in economic disadvantage to our
employees if our employees engage in organiza-
tional activities or other activities protected by
the provisions of Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with termina-
tion unless you accept existing , nonunion work-
ing conditions and/or because you fail to
disclose your involvement in union or protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from employees
for the purpose of ascertaining what improve-
ments in working conditions could be granted
which would induce the employee not to seek
unionization nor will we imply that such griev-
ances will be remedied.
WE WILL NOT interfere with employees by in-
sisting that they select an election observer and
by remaining present during the selection pro-
cess.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere
with , restrain, or coerce our employees in the
exercise of your right to self-organization, to
form, join, or assist Sales Drivers, Food Pro-
cessors,` Warehousemen & Helpers Local 952,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Ameri-
ca, or any other labor organization, to bargain
collectively through representatives of your own
choosing, or to engage in other concerted activi-
ties for the purpose of collective bargaining or
other mutual aid or protection , or to refrain from
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
any or all such activities.
All of our employees are free to join, or refrain from
joining, Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehouse-
men & Helpers Local 952, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers
of America, or any other labor organization.
SWIFT PRODUCE, INC
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced
by anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive
days from the date of posting and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compli-
ance with its provisions may be directed to the
Board's Office, Eastern Columbia Building, 849
South Broadway, Los Angeles, California 90014,
Telephone 213-688-5200.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES T. BARKER , Administrative Law Judge: This matter
was heard at Anaheim, California, September 28, 1972, pur-
suant to a complaint and notice of hearing issued on August
14, 1972, by the Regional Director of the National Labor
Relations Board for Region 21. The complaint arose upon
the charge filed by Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Ware-
housemen & Helpers Local 952, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, hereinafter called the Union, on June 28, 1972.
The complaint alleges violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hereinafter
called the Act. Briefs were filed with me on November 13,
1972.
Upon the consideration of the briefs of the parties, and
upon the entire record in this case, and upon my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact:
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent has been at all times material herein engaged
in wholesale sale and distribution of produce and food items
from its place of business located in Buena Park, California.
In the course and conduct of its business operations, Re-
spondent annually purchases and receives goods, products,
and services valued in excess of $50,000, either directly from
firms located outside the State of California, or directly
from firms located within the State of California, each of
whom, in turn, receive those same goods, products, and
services directly from outside the State of California.
Upon these admitted facts , I find that Respondent has
been at all times material herein an employer engaged in
commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
11 THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is, and has been at all times material herein,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Issues
The instant complaint alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1)
arising from threats and interrogations assertedly engaged
in by Crutchfield, owner of Respondent, and deriving also
from Crutchfield's solicitation of employee grievances; his
statements creating the impression of surveillance ; his insis-
tence that employees appoint an observer to serve in the
Board election which was scheduled to be held on June 29; /
and his actual surveillance of the employees' selection of an
observer.I
At the hearing, Respondent called no witnesses , but chal-
lenged the credibility of General Counsel' s witnesses in sev-
eral particulars. Further, conceding that Crutchfield's
interrogation of employees concerning their card signing
and other union activities violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act, Respondent nonetheless contends that no remedial or-
der is warranted. This is so, contends Respondent, because
no other violations of the Act were perpetrated and the
concededly unlawful interrogation stands in essential isola-
tion. Moreover, with specific reference to the asserted un-
lawful insistence that employees appoint an observer for the
scheduled election and the alleged surveillance of said selec-
tion, Respondent contends that Crutchfield acted through
misunderstanding of the Board 's election procedures and in
furtherance of the employees' rights under the statute and
not in derogation thereof.
B. The Alleged Unlawful Conduct
1. Employees separately interrogated
In mid-May, Crutchfield spoke individually on company
premises with seven of the employees comprising
Respondent's relatively small complement of driver/ware-
house personnel. In each instance, although the precise
form of the inquiry vaned, Crutchfield inquired into the
efforts of the employees to gain union representation. In
substance, he asked employees Scherlek, Roller, Smith, and
Green what was transpiring with respect to the Union. Of
Roller, he inquired if Roller had knowledge of the employ-
ees having a meeting "as to organizing." Crutchfield told
Roller that he knew the employees had signed cards and
asked Roller if he knew the identity of the employee who
had started the union activity. He added that he had learned
I Complaint allegations relating to asserted conduct of George Sanders,
coowner of Respondent , were dismissed at the hearing.
SWIFT PRODUCE, INC. 363
of the employees' card-signing activity from friends who
were stewards at the Los Angeles terminal. During the
course of his separate conversations with employees Moore,
Dibble, and Williams, Respondent inquired if they had
signed union authorization cards. In his conversation with
Scherlek, Smith, and Green, Crutchfield, in substance, ques-
tioned the necessity of a union, stated his opposition to a
union, averred that the Company could not afford a union,
and asserted that if the employees selected a union layoffs
would result, with the further possible consequence that
employees would be terminated and the operation shut
down or modified so as to become owner operated and
staffed. To Scherlek, Crutchfield stated there would be no
union and that the Company could not afford to pay over-
time. He invited Scherlek to quit his employment if he did
not like working "under those conditions ." He added that
employees Smith and Dibble had lied to him concerning
their knowledge of union activities, and he told Scherlek
that he could inform Smith that he could pick up his check
"in the morning." Crutchfield told Scherlek that he could do
the same. There is no record evidence to warrant the infer-
ence that this threat, made by Crutchfield in apparent an-
ger, was carried out.
2. Crutchfield meets with employees
Soon after his individual conversation with the employ-
ees, Crutchfield met with them collectively at a meeting
which he and George Sanders, the coowners of Respondent,
had called. Sanders attended the meeting.
At the outset of the meeting, Crutchfield asked if the
employees had a spokesman. Scherlek answered that the
employees "all had their gripes." From this comment,
Crutchfield took the lead in asking each employee to ex-
press his complaints. Predominantly mentioned by the em-
ployees was the desire for overtime. Crutchfield expressed
his view of the right of employees to organize and the rights
of management. Noting that the Company did not have to
agree to demands of the Union, Crutchfield, nonetheless,
stated that he was concerned about the ability of the Com-
pany to withstand those demands. He added that the Com-
pany could not meet them without cutting back on routes
2 Crutchfield had in fact been informed by Scherlek that employees had
sived authorization cards.
The foregoing is based on the undisputed testimony of the seven employ-
ees in question who participated in the separate conversations with Crutch-
field and who testified at the hearing before me . Crutchfield did not testify
Based on his witness chair demeanor , each witness appeared worthy of credit
I have considered the record testimony of Scherlek which reveals that his
testimony was fairly well committed to memory prior to his appearance as
a witness . His testimony to the effect that he had not reviewed his affidavit
for approximately a month is not credited As many of the statements made
by Crutchfield to Scherlek were of the variety made by Crutchfield to other
employees whose testimony is fully credible and credited , it is reasonable to
conclude that Crutchfield spoke to Scherlek in the same or similar vein as
he had spoken to other employees . Thus, where Scherlek's testimony is
supported by that of other witnesses , there is no reason to reject it. Where
Scherlek 's testimony is not so supported , I have credited him because the
tenor of Crutchfield 's remarks concerning his opposition to the Union, the
refusal to pay overtime , the possible termination of employees as a conse-
quence of unionization , and his invitation to Scherlek to quit and to inform
Smith that he could do likewise is essentially in keeping with the tenor of
Crutchfield's comments to other employees showing resentment of their
union activity and his own opposition to a union.
and laying off employees or "letting employees go." In the
presence of Crutchfield and Sanders, the employees then
commenced to discuss the pros and cons of unionization in
light of Crutchfield's statements. Crutchfield then observed
that it would be best if he and Sanders left and permitted
the employees to discuss the matter . Crutchfield asserted
that he and Sanders would be available in the main plant
if the employees desired to talk further with them.
Crutchfield and Sanders left and the employees decided
after a discussion of the matter to defer any decision con-
cerning whether to continue unionization efforts until after
a meeting with a union representative , which was scheduled
to be held in the next few days . Crutchfield was informed
that the employees wanted another meeting with manage-
ment at a later date and that they had deferred any decision
on the question of unionization.4
3. The selection of an election observer
On June 28, the day prior to the scheduled Board election,
Crutchfield met with the employees in a meeting held in the
warehouse. During the course of the meeting , Crutchfield
alluded to the election which was to be held the following
day. He informed the employees that it would be necessary
for them to select an observer for the election. He asserted
that the observer should be someone who was acquainted
with all of the employees and who could be present at the
time of the election. Employee Roller was nominated, but
he declined and ultimately an office employee, Edsel Bell,
was suggested. The employees agreed and Bell was selected.
Crutchfield was present at the time the choice of a nominee
was discussed and when Bell was selected.5
° The foregoing is based upon a synthesis of the testimony of record. The
accounts of each of the six witnesses who testified concerning the incident
varied significantly, but the findings above made are based , in each instance,
upon testimony corroborated by two or more witnesses . Williams, who at-
tended only a portion of the meeting could not recall any details of the
meeting I have placed no reliance upon his testimony . I am convinced by
the testimony of the witnesses generally that Crutchfield was not as vindictive
and overt in his threats as the testimony of Scherlek and Smith would indi-
cate Accordingly, based upon the testimony of Roller , Green, Moore, and
Dibble I find that Crutchfield's comments concerning the financial capacity
of the Company to meet the demands of the Union and the effects of
unionization upon employment were as found above . I do not find that
Crutchfield said , in terms, as Scherlek and Smith, in substance, testified, that
there would be no union and that there would be terminations in the event
a union were selected . Moreover , I do not credit the testimony of Scherlek
to the effect that Crutchfield accused him of being the leader of the union
effort; nor do I credit the testimony of Smith that Crutchfield was present
while the employees deliberated the wisdom of continuing or deferring un-
ionization efforts.
For whatever reason , I am convinced from the record as a whole that, in
the time between his individual conversations with employees and the meet-
ing in question , Crutchfield achieved control over his initial antipathy and
in a more disciplined and restrained manner spoke with employees concern-
in§ the union issue
The foregoing is based upon a composite of the credited testimony of
Elwood Roller , Bob Moore , and Mike Dibble. Moore testified that Crutch-
field informed the employees that the selection of an observer was mandatory
and the testimony of Roller on direct examination supports the testimony of
Moore. However , on cross-examination, Roller testified that Crutchfield
asserted that the employees "should" have an observer . Upon an analysis of
the record testimony , I conclude that Crutchfield's statement was couched
in essentially mandatory terms, as found above.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Conclusions
In agreement with the General Counsel I find that Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and that the
conduct of Crutchfield was pervasive enough to require a
remedy in order to eradicate the foreseeable and likely ef-
fects of his unlawful conduct.
It is axiomatic, as the Respondent concedes, that Crutch-
field interfered with the rights of employees under the Act
by inquiring into their card signing and other union activi-
ties. Included in the latter category of proscribed interroga-
tion were the efforts of Crutchfield to learn if organizing
meetings were being held, what was transpiring with respect
to the employees' organizing effort, and the identity of the
employee who had given leadership and impetus to the
organizing effort. Moreover, in violation of the Act, Crutch-
field conveyed the impression that the union activities of the
employees were being kept under surveillance by his refer-
ence to his conversation with a steward at the Los Angeles
terminal who assettedly informed Crutchfield of the card-
signing activities of the employees. Additionally, during his
separate conversations with employees, Crutchfield made
impermissible threats by stating to employees, in context
with an assertion of his own opposition to a union, that he
could not afford a union and that if the employees selected
a union layoffs would result, employees possibly terminat-
ed, or the operation shut down or modified so as to become
owner operated. So far as the record evidence discloses,
Crutchfield did not relate the layoffs, possible terminations,
or modification in the operation of the Company to any
unreasonable demands which the Union might impose
upon the Company. Lacking objective support suggesting
that these actions would result solely as a consequence of
economic necessity, Crutchfield's statements were not rea-
sonable predictions based on available facts but threats of
retaliation bearing the implication that he would resort sole-
ly to his own initiative because of his opposition to the
Union, and to punish employees for their resort to collective
representation.' Further, Crutchfield's invitation to Scher-
lek to leave his employment if he did not desire to work
under what amounted to nonunion conditions outlined by
Crutchfield, as well as Crutchfield's references to Smith's
prospective termination for concealing his union activities,
were similarly coercive and violative of the Act.
Moreover, in agreement with the General Counsel, I find
that Crutchfield's question at the outset of the first group
meeting concerning whether or not the employees had a
spokesman had the intent and effect of revealing the identi-
ty of the employee leader of the organizing effort and was
violative of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act. However, I am unable
to conclude that in any other respect Crutchfield's state-
ments or conduct during the course of the meeting violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. At the meeting, contrary to his
statements to the employees individually, as found above,
6 See N L R B v Gissel Packing Co, Inc, 395 U S 575 Crutchfield's
unsupported statement to Scherlek that the Company could not afford to pay
overtime , uttered in context of his statement revealing his opposition to the
Union and his intention to modify operating means so as to eliminate em-
ployees from the payroll, does not qualify as a reasonable prediction based
on available facts as required under the Gissel standard
Crutchfield merely expressed his apprehension over the ca-
pacity of the Company to meet union demands, and he did
not articulate any threats in discussing the possibility of
layoffs or terminations as a consequence of those demands.
Nor does the record reveal that in discussing employee
"gripes" Crutchfield endeavored to negotiate or strike a
bargain concerning alternative terms or conditions of em-
ployment.
Finally, contrary to the General Counsel, I am unable to
conclude that Crutchfield's conduct in connection with the
selection of an election observer violated the Act. It is clear
that the Act guarantees to a union and employees the right
to make an unhindered choice of an election observer and
to be free from employer interference in the selection .7
However, a mere gratuitous intrusion on the part of an
employer into the domain which is not properly his does not
assume the dimension of interference or coercion violative
of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, when the intrusion results from
an apparent misapprehension on his part of the Board's
election procedures, and is not featured by statements,
promises, threats, or inducements calculated to influence
the choice. There is no showing on this record that
Crutchfield's mere presence during the selection process
actually affected the employees' choice or resulted from any
intentional effort on Crutchfield's part to do so.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR
PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent described in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the-several States, and tend to lead to labor
disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(l) of the Act, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Swift Produce, Inc, is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Sales Drivers, Food Processors, Warehousemen &
Helpers Local 952, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. By interrogating employees concerning their card sign-
ing and other union or protected concerted activities and
r See N L R B v Builders Supply Co of Houston, 410 F 2d 606 (C A. 5,
1969), enfg as modified 168 NLRB 163
SWIFT PRODUCE, INC.
the union or protected concerted activities of other employ-
ees; by inquiring into the identity of the employee leader of
the organizational effort; by giving employees the impres-
sion that their union or concerted activities are under sur-
veillance; by threatening the employees with termination if
they will not accept the maintenance of nonunion working
conditions and/or because they fail to disclose their in-
volvement in union or protected concerted activities; and
by threatening employees with layoff, termination, or a
modification in the method of operations which would re-
dound to their economic disadvantages, Respondent has
engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Except as herein specifically found, the Respondent
has engaged in no other conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1)
of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
J
ORDERS
Respondent, Swift Produce, Inc., Buena Park, California,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Interrogating employees in a manner violative of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) Interrogating employees concerning their union or
other protected concerted activities, including their card-
signing activities, the conduct or pendency of organiza-
tional meetings, the identity of the employee or employees
8 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings.
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102 48
of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its
findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
365
who led the organizational effort or gave impetus to it.
(c) Giving employees the impression that their union or
protected concerted activities are under surveillance.
(d) Threatening employees with economic retaliation, in-
cluding layoffs, terminations, and a modification in operat-
ing methods which would redound to their economic
disadvantage if the employees select a labor organization to
represent them.
(e) Threatening employees with termination if they are
unwilling to accept the existing, nonunion working condi-
tions and/or because they fail to disclose their involvement
in union or protected concerted activities.
(f) In any other manner, interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization, to form, join, or assist the above-named
Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing, and to
engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Post at its Buena Park, California, place of business
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."' Copies
of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional
Director for Region 21, shall, after being duly signed by a
representative of Respondent, be posted by it immediately
upon receipt thereof and be maintained by it for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material.
(b) Notify the Regional Director for Region 21, in writ-
ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
9 In the event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order
of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board."